Search

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

Member

I generally like the idea of bigger events. I've stated elsewhere my support for gigaminx, but it does seem the popular consensus is behind kilominx. I'm strongly in favor of relays, such as 2-7, but I wonder about splitting it into 2-4 and 5-7? Or odd and even: 2-4-6 and 3-5-7? I think I prefer the first option, but either one could work.

I don't have a strong opinion about magic, but then again I wouldn't have a strong opinion about removing clock, skewb, pyraminx, or 2x2 either.

I am glad that 2 6 and 7 BLD are included: 2 is good practice for 3BLD corners, and it's nice to have a semi - official competition available for big blind even if I'm a long ways away from being able to compete in it.

I doubt anybody would do them blind with any regulatory, and I don't see them being added to the WCA lineup, but now that Yuxin is coming out with their 8-11 line I wonder about putting in some 8x8 speedsolve scrambles in on a trial basis.

I'd also be curious to see what could be done with old style MBLD.

Sorry for the long, disjointed post. I've had my phone in my pocket for the last hour or so while I'm doing chores, and I pull it out every few minutes to add another idea. Any more ideas I'll come back later and edit.

Member

While I personally hate Kilo, I see that everyone is interested and it makes sense to add. But, if Kilo is added I'd say we should also add Giga.
And yep, of course BLD scrambles with wide moves and correct FMC scrambles.
I don't care if Magic is removed but all other events should stay.

I thought that was kind of the point of FMC: to construct an alternate inverse scramble. A quick Google search for optimal Rubik's cube solution turns up stuff with Kociemba's algorithm, which computer solvers use to calculate optimal or near optimal solutions. If it was humanly feasible to apply it I suspect that FMC would look a little different, but I may be wrong.

Member

I thought that was kind of the point of FMC: to construct an alternate inverse scramble. A quick Google search for optimal Rubik's cube solution turns up stuff with Kociemba's algorithm, which computer solvers use to calculate optimal or near optimal solutions. If it was humanly feasible to apply it I suspect that FMC would look a little different, but I may be wrong.

I don't know, I think the point of FMC is to construct an alternate inverse scramble sequence but for using NISS and such we would only need to know where the corners/edges are on the cube and how they're oriented.

Premium Member

Several persons sharing last place with DNF will share their points (now they all
get only 1 each).
Maximize the participations points you can get in Multi. (when the rules for scoring
were decided no one solved more than say 10-12 cubes).
A few extra points for solved bld-events as opposed to just dnf

Premium Member

From next week (nr 4) we'll have prizes: the weekly competition is sponsored by theCubicle.us. One random competitor will receive a $10 giftcard to theCubicle each week. We will announce the winner at the end of each week and that competitor will be sent the giftcard via PM. Thanks to theCubicle.us for sponsoring these competitions for ten weeks.

About Speedsolving.com

SpeedSolving.com is a community focused on speed-solving puzzles, particularly the Rubik’s cube and alike. Created in 2006, the speedcubing community has grown from just a few to over 35,000 people that make up the community today. Competitions and unofficial meetups are organized all over the world on a weekly basis. The forum now has well over 1,200,000 posts and growing.